{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1c8flqlwmkh5vehm7rfcacurk9x5ggv36vtra2p97thynzfq0vxus5zgzt8","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1c8flqlwmkh5vehm7rfcacurk9x5ggv36vtra2p97thynzfq0vxus5zgzt8","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-08-15\n📝 Original message:\"I don’t think the concern here is so much that some people want to\nincrease block size. It’s the *way* in which this change is being pushed\nthat is deeply problematic.\"\n\nAs a developer on the side lines, bitcoin holder, bitcoin entrepreneur, and\nsomeone who thinks block size limits should be dynamic, I applaud Mike and\nCo. for this initiative, some of us that have different ideas on how to\ndeal with the blocksize issue will certainly not be afraid of wasting time\nsending patches to the Bitcoin XT project where it seems they're a bit more\nopen minded about this issue. I bet sending the same patch to Bitcoin-Core\nwould be rejected on the spot. Bitcoin XT, I hope, will give room to allow\nfor scalability, it seems the other camp is bent on using Bitcoin their own\nway and their own way only and that's far more problematic because that\nwill allienate the entire user base eventually.\n\nhttp://twitter.com/gubatron\n\nOn Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e\n\u003e On Aug 15, 2015, at 3:01 PM, Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e What are you so afraid of, Eric? If Mike's fork is successful, consensus\n\u003e is reached around larger blocks. If it is rejected, the status quo will\n\u003e remain for now. Network consensus, NOT CORE DEVELOPER CONSENSUS, is the\n\u003e only thing that matters, and those that go against network consensus will\n\u003e be severely punished with complete loss of income.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e I fully agree that core developers are not the only people who should have\n\u003e a say in this. But again, we’re not talking about merely forking some open\n\u003e source project - we’re talking about forking a ledger representing real\n\u003e assets that real people are holding…and I think it’s fair to say that the\n\u003e risk of permanent ledger forks far outweighs whatever benefits any change\n\u003e in the protocol might bring. And this would be true even if there were\n\u003e unanimous agreement that the change is good (which there clearly IS NOT in\n\u003e this case) but the deployment mechanism could still break things.\n\u003e\n\u003e If anything we should attempt a hard fork with a less contentious change\n\u003e first, just to test deployability.\n\u003e\n\u003e I'm not sure who appointed the core devs some sort of Bitcoin Gods that\n\u003e can hold up any change that they happen to disagree with. It seems like the\n\u003e core devs are scared to death that the bitcoin network may change without\n\u003e their blessing, so they go on and on about how terrible hard forks are.\n\u003e Hard forks are the only way to keep core devs in check.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Again, let’s figure out a hard fork mechanism and test it with a far less\n\u003e contentious change first\n\u003e\n\u003e Despite significant past technical bitcoin achievements, two of the most\n\u003e vocal opponents to a reasonable blocksize increase work for a company\n\u003e (Blockstream) that stands to profit directly from artificially limiting the\n\u003e blocksize. The whole situation reeks. Because of such a blatant conflict of\n\u003e interest, the ethical thing to do would be for them to either resign from\n\u003e Blockstream or immediately withdraw themselves from the blocksize debate.\n\u003e This is the type of stuff that I hoped would end with Bitcoin, but alas, I\n\u003e guess human nature never changes.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e For the record, I do not work for Blockstream. Neither do a bunch of other\n\u003e people who have published a number of concerns. Very few of the concerns\n\u003e I’ve seen from the technical community seem to be motivated primarily by\n\u003e profit motives.\n\u003e\n\u003e It should also be pointed out that *not* making drastic changes is the\n\u003e default consensus policy…and the burden of justifying a change falls on\n\u003e those who want to make the change. Again, the risk of permanent ledger\n\u003e forks far outweighs whatever benefits protocol changes might bring.\n\u003e\n\u003e Personally, I think miners should give Bitcoin XT a serious look. Miners\n\u003e need to realize that they are in direct competition with the lightning\n\u003e network and sidechains for fees. Miners, ask yourselves if you think you'll\n\u003e earn more fees with 1 MB blocks and more off-chain transactions or with 8\n\u003e MB blocks and more on-chain transactions…\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Miners are NOT in direct competition with the lightning network and\n\u003e sidechains - these claims are patently false. I recommend you take a look\n\u003e at these ideas and understand them a little better before trying to make\n\u003e any such claims. Again, I do not work for Blockstream…and my agenda in this\n\u003e post is not to promote either of these ideas…but with all due respect, I do\n\u003e not think you properly understand them at all.\n\u003e\n\u003e The longer this debate drags on, the more I agree with BIP 100 and Jeff\n\u003e Garzik because the core devs are already being influenced by outside forces\n\u003e and should not have complete control of the blocksize. It's also\n\u003e interesting to note that most of the mining hashpower is already voting for\n\u003e 8MB blocks BIP100 style.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e I don’t think the concern here is so much that some people want to\n\u003e increase block size. It’s the *way* in which this change is being pushed\n\u003e that is deeply problematic.\n\u003e\n\u003e On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e You deeply disappoint me, Mike.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Not only do you misrepresent many cogent, well thought out positions from\n\u003e\u003e a great number of people who have published and posted a number of articles\n\u003e\u003e detailing an explaining in-depth technical concerns…you also seem to fancy\n\u003e\u003e yourself more capable of reading into the intentions of someone who\n\u003e\u003e disappeared from the scene years ago, before we even were fully aware of\n\u003e\u003e many things we now know that bring the original “plan” into question.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I ask of you, as a civilized human being, to stop doing this divisive\n\u003e\u003e crap. Despite your protestations to the contrary, YOU are the one who is\n\u003e\u003e proposing a radical departure from the direction of the project. Also, as\n\u003e\u003e several of us have clearly stated before, equating the fork of an open\n\u003e\u003e source project with a fork of a cryptoledger is completely bogus - there’s\n\u003e\u003e a lot of other people’s money at stake. This isn’t a democracy - consensus\n\u003e\u003e is all or nothing. The fact that a good number of the people most\n\u003e\u003e intimately familiar with the inner workings of Satoshi’s invention do not\n\u003e\u003e believe doing this is a good idea should give you pause.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Please stop using Bitcoin as your own political football…for the sake of\n\u003e\u003e Bitcoin…and for your own sake. Despite your obvious technical abilities\n\u003e\u003e (and I sincerely do believe you have them) you are discrediting yourself\n\u003e\u003e and hurting your own reputation.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e - Eric\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Aug 15, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Hello,\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e As promised, we have released Bitcoin XT 0.11A which includes the bigger\n\u003e\u003e blocks patch set. You can get it from\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e      https://bitcoinxt.software/\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I feel sad that it's come to this, but there is no other way. The Bitcoin\n\u003e\u003e Core project has drifted so far from the principles myself and many others\n\u003e\u003e feel are important, that a fork is the only way to fix things.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Forking is a natural thing in the open source community, Bitcoin is not\n\u003e\u003e the first and won't be the last project to go through this. Often in forks,\n\u003e\u003e people say there was insufficient communication. So to ensure everything is\n\u003e\u003e crystal clear I've written a blog post and a kind of \"manifesto\" to\n\u003e\u003e describe why this is happening and how XT plans to be different from Core\n\u003e\u003e (assuming adoption, of course).\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e The article is here:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e     https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e It makes no attempt to be neutral: this explains things from our point of\n\u003e\u003e view.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e The manifesto is on the website.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I say to all developers on this list: if you also feel that Core is no\n\u003e\u003e longer serving the interests of Bitcoin users, come join us. We don't bite.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150815/d77855cf/attachment-0001.html\u003e"}